Biswajit Das vs UCO Bank And Ors

Heard Ms. A Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to release the benefits, due on account of death of Dipali Das, mother of the petitioner, on 17.12.2012.

It has been urged that the respondents be directed to release the proceeds of the provident fund vide PF Account No. 34512 to her legal heirs with 12% interest. Further, it has been also urged to release the leave salary, GSLI benefits and other benefits payable on account of death of Dipali Das, the mother of the petitioner, on 17.12.2012 with 12% interest.

Further, another direction has been sought from this court on the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner for death of his mother as she was working as the part-time sweeper. The relevant facts for appreciating the challenge be introduced at the outset. The petitioner's mother, namely, Dipali Das was serving the respondents as part-time sweeper.

Dipali Das died on 17.12.2012 which would be evident from the death certificate dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The petitioner on 17.01.2013 informed the respondents about the death of his mother and requested the respondents to take the appropriate steps on the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Dipali Das is survived by her two daughters, namely, Shipra Saha (Das) and Rekha Das and the petitioner.

Ms. A Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have filed a copy of the survival certificate dated 02.04.2013 [page 16 of the reply filed by the respondent]. The respondents, have in para 10 of the reply stated that Dipali Das is survived by the petitioner, Shipra Saha (Das), Rekha Das, Sudip Das and Smt. Susmita Das. It is not clear how Sudip Das and Smt. Susmita Das became the legal heirs of Dipali Das being her grandson and grand daughter. That can be so, if they are the descendants of pre-deceased son and daughter of Dipali Das, but if they are the sons and daughters of the other legal heirs as named, they cannot be the legal heirs for purpose of inheriting the property. Anyway, it is not made very clear, either by the petitioner or by the respondents.

The facts as asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition have not been disputed. But the respondents have strongly denied that there was any negligence on their part or there was any intention to deny the petitioner to draw his share from the bank on completing the required formality.

On 13.11.2017, the petitioner served a legal notice for releasing the said benefits. In reply to the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondents have, in their reply submitted that the petitioner and other legal heirs of Dipali Das did not take the required steps i.e. filing of the prescribed claim form.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the Bank-respondents has stated that by the communication dated 06.11.2014, the Zonal Office of UCO Bank, Agartala was apprised that the claim paper, processed to the Head Office (Personnel Services Department, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064) was not properly filed and documented. In that letter dated 06.11.2014, the Chief Manager, Personnel Services of the respondent-Bank has adviced how to forward the same form.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, thereafter, has contended that no further steps had been taken in respect of the prescribed form. The bank had been sincerely trying to release the said amount on settlement, but despite their best efforts, they could not settle the issue. Finally, on 16.11.2017 all the legal heirs [as found in the survival certificate] were issued notice asking them to submit necessary documents for early settlement of terminal benefit on account of death of Dipali Das, but no such effort had been taken from the legal heirs of Dipali Das.

Ms. A Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the question that the petitioner may be afforded with compassionate appointment to overcome the financial stringency which has suddenly visited the petitioners and others for death of Dipali Das. In reply to the said claim, made by the petitioner, the respondent has referred to their internal guidelines particularly Rule 3(B) of the circular No. CHO/PMG/24/2007-08 dated 07.11.2007 narrating where the scheme of compassionate appointment can be applied. The cases are as follows:

"i. Employee dying while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or decoity;

ii. Employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children.

So as per the scheme the petitioner is not entitled for Compassionate Appointment."

The circular dated 07.11.2007 has been made part of the writ petition as Annexure-3.

Mr. D Sarma, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment as he or any of the legal heirs is not covered by any of the conditions for granting compassionate appointment. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel has also submitted that unless such appointment is covered by the scheme for such purpose, the petitioner cannot claim such benefit as a matter of right.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel has submitted that if the formalities are observed, the bank will immediately release the benefits entitled to the petitioner. Having appreciated the undertaking, in the conspectus of fact as laid, and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the petitioner has not added other legal heirs as the party in the proceeding. They might have their own saying in the matter and as such this court cannot infer anything either in favour of the petitioner or against any of the legal heirs.

But it is made absolutely clear that the petitioner or any legal heirs under the scheme as provided by the circular No. CHO/PMG/24/2007-08 dated 07.11.2007 is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.

So far the question of releasing the terminal benefits, on account death of Dipali Das (the employee No. 34521) who was last attached to Mohanpur Branch is concerned, the beneficiaries [the legal heirs] shall submit the required form as reflected in the communication dated 06.11.2014 expeditiously.

If there is any inter-se dispute and that prevents the petitioner to file such form to the bank, the bank-respondents shall allow the petitioner to individually file such form but the bank-respondents shall only release the share that would be entitled to the petitioner. For this purpose, the petitioner has to submit the declaration of legal heirs, as per law, affirmed by an affidavit. The Bank authority will make the necessary inquiry to ascertain whether the statement is correct or not, and thereafter, the terminal amount be released to the petitioner. From the date of death i.e. 17.12.2012 till the day of being of this writ petition i.e. 23.08.2018 the Bank-respondent shall add interest @ 5% on the accumulated benefit.

Further, the bank-respondent shall settle the matter within a period of 30 days without fail, from the day of receiving the claim form etc.

With these observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.